Certainly improvement, but 40+ seconds from 3 of 4 runners from a TRACK to an XC course only 5 months later you have to admit is pretty incredible. Just saying the course was probably short. But, bottom line, so what...
Foot Locker admits to adding 70 meters to South Regional course
High School Running
Distance
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
Certainly improvement, but 40+ seconds from 3 of 4 runners from a TRACK to an XC course only 5 months later you have to admit is pretty incredible. Just saying the course was probably short. But, bottom line, so what...
Stat Geek wrote:
Just some interesting stats that might speak to the South Regional course comparing times of female runners who ran both the 5k at New Balance Nationals Outdoor on the track the summer of 2014 and then later ran the Foot Locker South Regional 5k course that November:
____________________NBNO____FL South
Ryen Frazier________17:15______16:27
Savanah Carnahan__18:32______17:51
Lily Anderson_______18:43______17:52
Pretty dramatic cuts in time from a national championship 5k track run to a regional XC 5k course. Wouldn't one suspect that the south region course was short (although I don't think this had any bearing on correctly choosing the fine qualifiers for FL National).
The exception I found was Erin Saunders who ran 17:50 at NBNO and 18:28 at FLS
Oh? wrote:
Your post assumes that it was 5k prior to this year, rather than 5k now. Is that a good assumption? It's always been a ridiculously fast course.
And then Ryen Frazier ran 16:11 or something that winter. People improve.[/quote] -
Do the math - being within .008 is accurate, but certainly NOT precise. That level of accuracy is certainly obtainable with a survey wheel.
You may be able to keep constant pressure while using a bike on a flat road course without stopping and getting on and off. But as you admitted this is extremely difficult on a CC course. Keeping consistent pressure with a survey wheel is NOT hard, it is just what you learn to do. Also, tire inflation on pre and post ride measurements is another non-factor with a survey wheel. The actual process/methodology using either devise is more important than the pressure issue with either devise.
To believe that a "Jones counter mounted on a fork as their wheel" is any more accurate than a quality calibrated survey wheel is at the heart of this issue.
How many stakes are used to create a smooth line to measure curves with a tensioned "cable"?? You really think you could come back to a CC course and create that exact same curve with a tensioned "cable" and be spot on twice? -
J.R. wrote:
Survey Solutions, LLC wrote:
The belief that the Jones Counter is this incredible tool is a fallacy. So many variables with that method and the equipment (bike) and rider, along with the math and conversions create as much error, if not more, than quality gps devices, or a quality wheel "used correctly".
No, that is nonsense.
Gps and wheels are not even close to being as accurate.
Did you see the results from the Illinois State Course measurement marathon using all types of measuring devises? -
Survey Solutions, LLC wrote:
Do the math - being within .008 is accurate, but certainly NOT precise. That level of accuracy is certainly obtainable with a survey wheel.
You may be able to keep constant pressure while using a bike on a flat road course without stopping and getting on and off. But as you admitted this is extremely difficult on a CC course. Keeping consistent pressure with a survey wheel is NOT hard, it is just what you learn to do. Also, tire inflation on pre and post ride measurements is another non-factor with a survey wheel. The actual process/methodology using either devise is more important than the pressure issue with either devise.
To believe that a "Jones counter mounted on a fork as their wheel" is any more accurate than a quality calibrated survey wheel is at the heart of this issue.
Do you have any backup for this? I mean, you keep asserting that the survey wheel is accurate, I just see people with lots of experience and certification saying it isn't. -
Since of the objectives of the USATF standard is to be able to document the course to be able to reproduce it yes I do believe I can be spot on twice. It's surely going to be a heck of a lot easier that walking the course the same way twice.
Survey Solutions, LLC wrote:
How many stakes are used to create a smooth line to measure curves with a tensioned "cable"?? You really think you could come back to a CC course and create that exact same curve with a tensioned "cable" and be spot on twice?
In any case the only difference between steel tape and cable is one is flat and the other round. It's still just a long piece of steel of a verified length with markings on it. Tensioning isn't magic, it's just a guarantee it's taught (and thus reproducible) and you do the same thing with steel tape.
In any case a good biker is going to hit both measurements within 1 or 2 clicks of the Jones counter on a 5K, which is a variance of 8" either way, certainly not "precise" but I'd wager it's well beyond the abilities of most walking wheel users on an XC course.
For sure, electronic survey equipment with tape/cable/chain for the curvy parts could be precise but let's face it, .008 is good enough for world records so it should be good enough for cross country. -
TrackCoach wrote:
FL baloney wrote:
The rumors are confirmed that extra distance was added to the FL south course, 70 meters at that. Foot Locker stated in an email before the race that the trails had been widened but it was still a certified 5k course, then waited until today to say otherwise.
To put this in perspective, if these runners went the exact same average pace for the proper 5000 meters...
Weini Kelati would've run a 16:26
Drew Hunter would've run 14:14
https://twitter.com/milestatdotcom/status/671770003184754688
For the record, I measured McAlpine back 2006 and again 2010 or 2011, both times it was after a lot of talk about the course being short because of the fast times. I used a well calibrated pedometer and a bike, both of which are more accurate than a wheel for XC in my opinion. Both measurements came out as being short by an insignificant amount. A few points: First off. the course is fast and Charlotte has almost perfect weather in late November. McAlpine does have a decent sized hill, but the rest of the course is completely flat with compacted dirt. McAlpine also benefits from the fact that most southern schools get two weeks to train between their state meet and the FLSE. One possible issue with MCAlpine is if you are smart and scout the course really well, there are at least 2 places where the best line is not the well worn path and if you race one of the years where they don't have a lot of markers or Marshalls, you can game the course by about 20 meters.
I have never measured a XC course that was exactly 3.1 meters. Unless you use survey equipment, draw lines in the ground that match your survey and make sure runners proceed along that exact line, you will never get a perfectly measured course. Btw, the U.S. is the only place were people focus on exact XC measurements and times.
"A well calibrated pedometer"??? Not sure what that is? What was the measuring devise on your bike?
Why do you feel that these two measuring devises are better than a wheel?
What was the method you used to measure McAlpine?
What do you typically use when you measure all of these CC courses that end up not being 3.1 miles? How off are they? -
Keith Stone wrote:
Since of the objectives of the USATF standard is to be able to document the course to be able to reproduce it yes I do believe I can be spot on twice. It's surely going to be a heck of a lot easier that walking the course the same way twice.
Survey Solutions, LLC wrote:
How many stakes are used to create a smooth line to measure curves with a tensioned "cable"?? You really think you could come back to a CC course and create that exact same curve with a tensioned "cable" and be spot on twice?
In any case the only difference between steel tape and cable is one is flat and the other round. It's still just a long piece of steel of a verified length with markings on it. Tensioning isn't magic, it's just a guarantee it's taught (and thus reproducible) and you do the same thing with steel tape.
In any case a good biker is going to hit both measurements within 1 or 2 clicks of the Jones counter on a 5K, which is a variance of 8" either way, certainly not "precise" but I'd wager it's well beyond the abilities of most walking wheel users on an XC course.
For sure, electronic survey equipment with tape/cable/chain for the curvy parts could be precise but let's face it, .008 is good enough for world records so it should be good enough for cross country.
You obviously haven't done the math nor understand how difficult it is to maintain the same line in multiple measurements even on a bike. I would be willing to bet YOU couldn't be within two clicks on a Jones Counter equipped bike on even a 400m track.
You didn't answer how many stakes are used to create a smooth line on a curve when using a tensioned "cable". Do you have any photos of such a set up? -
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Survey Solutions, LLC wrote:
Do the math - being within .008 is accurate, but certainly NOT precise. That level of accuracy is certainly obtainable with a survey wheel.
You may be able to keep constant pressure while using a bike on a flat road course without stopping and getting on and off. But as you admitted this is extremely difficult on a CC course. Keeping consistent pressure with a survey wheel is NOT hard, it is just what you learn to do. Also, tire inflation on pre and post ride measurements is another non-factor with a survey wheel. The actual process/methodology using either devise is more important than the pressure issue with either devise.
To believe that a "Jones counter mounted on a fork as their wheel" is any more accurate than a quality calibrated survey wheel is at the heart of this issue.
Do you have any backup for this? I mean, you keep asserting that the survey wheel is accurate, I just see people with lots of experience and certification saying it isn't.
It's just math. Just like a Jones counter is calibrated on a calibration course, a good surveyor verifies their equipment in the same manner. User error is always greater than the error generated by quality equipment, but you need to know what you are working with. Simple as that.
I have not tested the new Jones Counter that has copied what quality survey wheels have had for years, a continuous gear mechanism. The older model with one click per revolution were "highly" inaccurate and that fact was known by the measuring world, including USATF. -
What version Jones Counter do you own? What speed do you ride? What is your acceleration/deceleration process?
When you did your tests with the survey wheels, what were the variances between your measurements with each wheel? -
Pro Timer wrote:
Survey Solutions, LLC wrote:
See how many units you get lap after lap of testing and at different speeds. Now use the same process with a quality survey wheel and see how much of difference there is between the two measuring devices
I have done something similar with a calibration course and it gave me confidence in the Jones Counter and distrust of wheel measurements.
1) I have a 400m calibration course by my home. I measured it properly using the steel tape method.
2) When I ride the calibration course with my Jones Counter my measurements are always within 1 count, which is a few cms difference. I'm shocked how repeatedly the Jones Counter measurements are.
3) I decided one day to wheel the calibration course with 2 different wheels. With each wheel I measured it 4 times. The average of one of the wheels was 396meters. The other wheel one was 403meters. One wheel was a Rolatape and the other a Lurkin from Home Depot.
So wheel from different manufacturess give different readings. Likely it's because of their weight or the surface they were calibrated on. Either way, I wasn't impressed. My jones counter is calibrated each time to my weight on the surface I choose (that mimics the race course as much as possible) at the temperature I choose.
You mentioned there can be errors in the jones counter calculations. I use an Excel template to minimize this. In addition, another benefit of the USATF certificate process is a 2nd or 3rd set of eyes reviews all the work. My state certifier seems to repeat all the math I do to make sure correct. My regional certifier reviews things too. He once caught an error where the east and west were transposed on the map.
The USATF road course certification is really quite good. Too bad there's nothing for XC and that can't easily change.
What version Jones Counter do you own? What speed do you ride? What is your acceleration/deceleration process?
When you did your tests with the survey wheels, what were the variances between your measurements with each wheel? -
Stat Geek wrote:
Certainly improvement, but 40+ seconds from 3 of 4 runners from a TRACK to an XC course only 5 months later you have to admit is pretty incredible. Just saying the course was probably short. But, bottom line, so what...
Did you consider the temperature and wind and humidity? And of course, if one of the races is more "tactical" it can have a big effect on the times also. -
Actual click counts from my measurements on 5 different courses, 2 different bikes, and 3 different Jones counters:
Survey Solutions, LLC wrote:
You obviously haven't done the math nor understand how difficult it is to maintain the same line in multiple measurements even on a bike. I would be willing to bet YOU couldn't be within two clicks on a Jones Counter equipped bike on even a 400m track.
Ride 1: 2034, ride 2 2028 (6 clicks over 5K)
Ride 1: 58940, ride 2 58934 (6 clicksover 5K)
Ride 1: 2036, ride 2 2039 (3 clicks over 5K)
Ride 1: 18384, ride 2 18370 (6 clicks over 8K)
Ride 1: 2729, ride 2 2728 (1 click over 5K)
I'd have no problem hitting inside 2 clicks on a 400M track and I don't measure that often compared to more skilled measurers. So yes I've done the math and understand perfectly well the issues with maintaining a line on a bike vs wheel as I've done both. When you look and see my average variance is less than 8" PER MILE (.0015) over several years of measuring it's pretty clear to see someone doing it more regularly would have a lower variance.
You are correct that it's difficult maintaining a line over multiple measurements, but I contend that a bike is far easier since you have inertia in your favor. At best I'd say a skilled wheel measurer and skilled bike measurer would tie as far as accuracy, but you'll find more people that can hit that level of proficiency on a bike vs a wheel.
However the long and short of it is not the measuring device, but the process of reproducing the course repeatedly over time. Makes absolutely no difference if you have a perfect laser measured course if that's not what's laid out on race day.
I'd contend that with any of the methods a skilled measurer could get a accurate pair of measurements, but few would be able to mark/document the course sufficiently that someone could come back the following year and get the same measurement. -
NFHS Official wrote:
It's actually AGAINST the rules to have a course OVER 5000m for high school competition. Yet, some states make it illegal for coaches to challenge the length of the course, long or short.
Interesting if true.
I'd actually assume there is a bit of a money factor involved. Make a short XC course, not exceptionally short but short enough, and then get that reputation of having an insanely fast course where you'll definitely PR. As long as no one is allowed to measure it out then you can sit back and become a mainstay on team's schedules year after year. -
Survey Solutions, LLC wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Survey Solutions, LLC wrote:
Do the math - being within .008 is accurate, but certainly NOT precise. That level of accuracy is certainly obtainable with a survey wheel.
You may be able to keep constant pressure while using a bike on a flat road course without stopping and getting on and off. But as you admitted this is extremely difficult on a CC course. Keeping consistent pressure with a survey wheel is NOT hard, it is just what you learn to do. Also, tire inflation on pre and post ride measurements is another non-factor with a survey wheel. The actual process/methodology using either devise is more important than the pressure issue with either devise.
To believe that a "Jones counter mounted on a fork as their wheel" is any more accurate than a quality calibrated survey wheel is at the heart of this issue.
Do you have any backup for this? I mean, you keep asserting that the survey wheel is accurate, I just see people with lots of experience and certification saying it isn't.
It's just math. Just like a Jones counter is calibrated on a calibration course, a good surveyor verifies their equipment in the same manner. User error is always greater than the error generated by quality equipment, but you need to know what you are working with. Simple as that.
I have not tested the new Jones Counter that has copied what quality survey wheels have had for years, a continuous gear mechanism. The older model with one click per revolution were "highly" inaccurate and that fact was known by the measuring world, including USATF.
Interesting. Honestly my understanding (again, I am not a measurer, just somebody with an interest), is that it is more physics than math. In that it is hard to keep the wheel in continuous contact the ground with the relatively low level or pressure you can keep on it with your arm as opposed to the level of pressure you can keep on a bike with body weight. -
Keith Stone wrote:
Actual click counts from my measurements on 5 different courses, 2 different bikes, and 3 different Jones counters:
Survey Solutions, LLC wrote:
You obviously haven't done the math nor understand how difficult it is to maintain the same line in multiple measurements even on a bike. I would be willing to bet YOU couldn't be within two clicks on a Jones Counter equipped bike on even a 400m track.
Ride 1: 2034, ride 2 2028 (6 clicks over 5K)
Ride 1: 58940, ride 2 58934 (6 clicksover 5K)
Ride 1: 2036, ride 2 2039 (3 clicks over 5K)
Ride 1: 18384, ride 2 18370 (6 clicks over 8K)
Ride 1: 2729, ride 2 2728 (1 click over 5K)
I'd have no problem hitting inside 2 clicks on a 400M track and I don't measure that often compared to more skilled measurers. So yes I've done the math and understand perfectly well the issues with maintaining a line on a bike vs wheel as I've done both. When you look and see my average variance is less than 8" PER MILE (.0015) over several years of measuring it's pretty clear to see someone doing it more regularly would have a lower variance.
You are correct that it's difficult maintaining a line over multiple measurements, but I contend that a bike is far easier since you have inertia in your favor. At best I'd say a skilled wheel measurer and skilled bike measurer would tie as far as accuracy, but you'll find more people that can hit that level of proficiency on a bike vs a wheel.
However the long and short of it is not the measuring device, but the process of reproducing the course repeatedly over time. Makes absolutely no difference if you have a perfect laser measured course if that's not what's laid out on race day.
I'd contend that with any of the methods a skilled measurer could get a accurate pair of measurements, but few would be able to mark/document the course sufficiently that someone could come back the following year and get the same measurement.
You mean 8 FEET per mile? -
racket wrote:
NFHS Official wrote:
It's actually AGAINST the rules to have a course OVER 5000m for high school competition. Yet, some states make it illegal for coaches to challenge the length of the course, long or short.
Interesting if true.
I'd actually assume there is a bit of a money factor involved. Make a short XC course, not exceptionally short but short enough, and then get that reputation of having an insanely fast course where you'll definitely PR. As long as no one is allowed to measure it out then you can sit back and become a mainstay on team's schedules year after year.
The rule doesn't prohibit the measuring of a course for "coaching purposes", you just aren't allowed "comment" on course length. People definitely like fast courses, but cross country is ultimately about place. -
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Interesting. Honestly my understanding (again, I am not a measurer, just somebody with an interest), is that it is more physics than math. In that it is hard to keep the wheel in continuous contact the ground with the relatively low level or pressure you can keep on it with your arm as opposed to the level of pressure you can keep on a bike with body weight.
Agreed, but how do these guys pushing for the steel tape method keep that steel tape stretched and flat to the ground on courses that have undulating terrain and a bunch of turns. Can a steel tape be tensioned at half, or 1/10 of it's length? -
NFHS Official wrote:
racket wrote:
NFHS Official wrote:
It's actually AGAINST the rules to have a course OVER 5000m for high school competition. Yet, some states make it illegal for coaches to challenge the length of the course, long or short.
Interesting if true.
I'd actually assume there is a bit of a money factor involved. Make a short XC course, not exceptionally short but short enough, and then get that reputation of having an insanely fast course where you'll definitely PR. As long as no one is allowed to measure it out then you can sit back and become a mainstay on team's schedules year after year.
The rule doesn't prohibit the measuring of a course for "coaching purposes", you just aren't allowed "comment" on course length. People definitely like fast courses, but cross country is ultimately about place.
Which states prohibit that?
Back in the day (I'm old) we ran courses between 2.8 and 3.2 miles and never worried so much about course length. I mean I saw coaches measure with a wheel, but there was never much discussion about course length or time/pace. We all knew everybody ran the same course that day. -
Thread Follower wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Interesting. Honestly my understanding (again, I am not a measurer, just somebody with an interest), is that it is more physics than math. In that it is hard to keep the wheel in continuous contact the ground with the relatively low level or pressure you can keep on it with your arm as opposed to the level of pressure you can keep on a bike with body weight.
Agreed, but how do these guys pushing for the steel tape method keep that steel tape stretched and flat to the ground on courses that have undulating terrain and a bunch of turns. Can a steel tape be tensioned at half, or 1/10 of it's length?
I believe a chain can be, due to the multiple links. Not sure about a tape
I would think any of these measuring methods would be a lot more accurate on a flat, level surface than something undulating on hills.
That is probably another reason why there was not discussion on pace and length back in the day. We didn't have many flat, fast courses. It was understood that XC included hills.
